Nikon/Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 ED Telephoto Lens

[robert_beede]

I'm new to Nikon, recently purchasing a D 50.

My question is if anyone knows much about using the Nikon/Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 ED

Telephoto Lens w/ the D 50 or the Nikon 400/3.5 AIS.

I'm looking at doing bird photography and appreciate any insights as to how

well the lenses might work w/ this camera and the quality (sharpness & clarity)

the lens produces.

Thank you! Robert Beede

[joseph_smith3]

Both lenses are sharp. The drawback is that your camera will not meter with them. And you will have to focus them manually which may or may not be an issue for you depending on your eyesight and the quality of the viewfinder on the D 50. A better lens would be the Nikon 500mm F 4.0 P lens which is chipped, which means it is electronic which means it will meter on the d 50 and it is 100mm longer which IMO is very important for bird photography even larger wading birds. Do not forget that a proper tripod and head and long lens technique are also very important ingredients for producing good nature images. Make sure you provide for them in your budget. Joe Smith

[Matthew Currie]

I have the original AI version (not IF) of the 400/5.6, which I use with film on a Nikon F, so I can't address how it works with any digital camera. It's super sharp and robustly made, and small enough to hand hold when the light is bright enough. Optically it's hard to fault. Its two drawbacks are an inability to focus close, and quite slow focusing (a lot of twist required). The former problem is correctible with extension tubes, but is obviously a bit inconvenient. The latter makes for very precise focusing on stationary objects, but difficulty following action. I think the later IF versions of this lens have somewhat faster and closer focusing, but I've heard (not seen personally) that their image quality is not as good as the older ones.

 

My wife loves her 500/4 P. The only drawback, other than size and price, is a somewhat flimsy tripod mount; but if you can afford one of these, and are willing to carry it, and have a big enough tripod, I don't think you'll regret it. I'm willing to bet that once you have a bird in your sights you will never think to yourself "I wish I had a slower, shorter lens!"

[joseph_smith3]

To avoid any problems with mounting these big tele lenses on your ball head or gimbal head you will likely need to purchase a long lens plate from Wimberley, Really Right Stuff or Kirk. I suggest you consider getting one longer than the one recommended by the manufacturer for the lens in question and one which is double dove tailed. A longer lens plate gives you more length in which to balance it on the head especially if you add a teleconverter and extension tube or both to the lens. (You may also need room to mount a flash bracket to hold a SB-600 or SB-800 for fill flash and these arms usually mount to the lens plate.) This is particulary true for the 400 f 3.5 lens which is "front heavy". The 500mm F 4.0 P lens is very well balanced when used w/o a tc or ext tube. Check out the web sites for Really Right Stuff and Wimberley and Kirk. They are quite educational. Joe Smith

[slopoki]

The 400/5.6ED is a very sharp lens and handles the TC-14b and TC-301 very well but is much harder to focus then the 400/5.6 EDIF version which is good with the 14b, 14e, or kenko teleplus pro 300 1,4x.

I still use the 5.6EDIF version with a pro 300 1.4x on it most of the time. It's a great lens for bird portraits and is light enough to hand hold for long periods of time.

 

Osprey with 400/5.6 EDIF and 1.4 pro 300

 

http://members.aol.com:/slopoki/os2.jpg

 

Rick

 

Bird Gallery http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/gallery/2743415#225411018

[douglas_greenberg]

I own and use both of the mentioned teles, and I will vouch for the optical quality of each. The 400mm. f5.6 ED is amazingly sharp, even wide open. And yes, the focus is not fast, so you learn to prefocus as best you can. I took the 400mm. f3.5 AI to Costa Rica this past summer, as it would fit in my camera bag better than my larger 500mm. f4P. It performed quite well, with and without teleconverters. It's a bit prone to CA when the lighting is very bright, but this is correctable in post-processing.

 

You can use them on a D50 if you use a separate light meter. I used to do this using my old D100 and really, one gets used to the process fairly quickly. It's also easy to bracket and check one's exposures after the fact. But I confess I was very happy to get a D200, which allows TTL metering with older AI lenses.

 

I don't know if Roland Elliot is still adding microchips to lenses for use on Nikon bodies that won't meter without them. I had him "chip" my 400mm. f3.5, and that worked out well. I had the 400mm. f5.6 chipped, as well, and that was not as satisfactory, since the lens really only metered properly while wide open.

[joseph_smith3]

I use my 400mm f 3.5 often as a macro lens on my D 200. In addition to its use as a long focal length lens, its focuses at pretty close ranges so it makes a great lens for those hard to get macro shots of dragon flies, frogs, etc in ponds when you do not want to get wet. Just add some Nikon ext tubes, not Kenko, and tcs. Kenko's might cause vignetting.

 

Ditto the remark about getting it into a camera bag. I have taken it with me on airplanes in a Loewpro Minitrekker with a camera body next to it. It works great with both Nikon tcs the 14b and tc 301 and all Nikon extension tubes. Same goes for the 500mm f 4.0 P lens. Bjorn Rorslett has made the same comment about CA as above, but I have not noticed any or not much of any in my use. Its built in lens lens hood is short, but you can make your own out of wood veneer if you want it extended.

 

Joe Smith

[dave_weber1]

I have both the f/5.6 ED Ai non-IF ($450 used), and the f/3.5 ($950 used). My shooting style is slow and deliberate - involving static or inanimate subjects.

 

On occasion I will shoot flying birds. I originally used the 3.5 lens for that. The images were very good, but I'd average only about 30% of the flying shots in focus. Also, many images would be degraded by a heavy dose of CA.

 

In an effort to obtain more in focus flight shots, I purchased a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 for $1,700. With it 70 - 80% of my images were in focus and there were no CA issues! But unfortunately the Sigma images lacked the crispness, color and contrast that the Nikkor 3.5 produced. Good images, but not great.

 

Because of the significant CA issue with the 3.5, I started using the Nikkor f/5.6 ED Ai non-IF lens. Sure, I'm back to being a slow shooter again (actually the non-IF is even slower focusing than the 3.5). Now when I shoot fast moving birds, only about 20% are in critical focus. But Ohhhhhhhhh the quality of those 20% that do turn out - magnificent - IMO slightly better than the 3.5's and without perceptable CA!!!

 

So, it all boils down to your personal style. If you cann't afford thousands for a big glass Nikkor auto-focus, but still want images that are truly extraordinary, go for the 5.6 - but just be patient and realize that the 5.6 is slow and you won't get a high hit ratio with flying birds. But the hits you do have will be home runs.

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

Hello All,

 

One of the big gaps in the Nikon lens line-up is a fast-focusing 400mm lens. Now I know there is a 400 F4 VR and a 200-400 VR zoom - but these are big, heavy and expensive. For those of us who like to shoot birds in flight, the 300mm F4 AFS is not long enough. By comparison, the Canon 400 F5.6 AF is a great lens for speed/size and shooting birds in flight.

 

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 400mm F5.6 AF lens? That might be a way to stay with Nikon in this focal range...

 

Thanks!

[carl_becker2]

I use a 400mm f5.6 ED-IF on my D200. Its a delightfully compact, sharp lense. If I had the resources I would upgrade to the Nikkor 500mm f4 P. Manual focus with the Katz-eye screen is better then the OEM screen.

[robert_beede]

First of all, thanks to each of you for responding- very educational for me, plus encouraging that you'd take the time to mentor me.

The 500 f4 sounds great, i just can't afford it.

i've found a Nikon 600 5.6 Ov Lens and a Nikon 400 5.6 Edif Ais Lens in my price range along w/ a Nikon/Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 EDif but i don't know if it is an Ais. The owner recommended i not buy it for my D 50, probably due to what you all mentioned above- the manual focus and that the metering system will not work.

I've read other threads on photo.net, and am enjoying learning about all this, but it can get rather confusing!

Thanks for your time and submissions. I greatly appreciate any comments.